Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Andrés Velasco, a former presidential candidate and finance minister of Chile, is Professor of Professional Practice in International Development at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He has taught at Harvard University and New York University, and is the author of numerous studies on international economics and development.

The conversation is most rude on both sides of the discussion. Liberals have morphed into a non-tolerant group while conservatives are wholly abused and dismissed. The example of a government that repeatedly turns its back on illegitimate schemes of personal enrichment and flagrant disregard for law alienates massive numbers of the electorate. Both sides have watched the inner cities of America descend into a hell on earth. The Democratic Party's
legacy of re-enslaving black and poor white Americans is abominable. The traditional Republican response has been pathetic. Possibly with a contrarian focus of a Trump, real reform can take place. There is no room in my heart for politicians who will not follow through to end this madness. ISIS is not our number one threat to peace and security, it's our lack of love and commitment to our abandoned masses in the cities along with our rural poor. A continuation of empty rhetoric must end.

Mr Velasco, you state: "Today, US President Barack Obama is the only liberal democratic leader who speaks the language of values and virtue." I suggest you consider Mr. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada as at least one other liberal democratic leader who speaks the language of values and virtue.

There still is a lot to lose, but its shrinking fast. Sadly, the Trump supporters seem to believe they think setting a back-fire is the last best chance to save at least part of the village. In terms Vargas Llosa describes in "Notes on the Death of Culture" this is all part of the Spectacle. We are all now willing or unwilling participants in the kardashian-azation of society. It matters not if you are corrupt or a blowhard, its the adulation, the "buzz", and ultimately the ratings that count.

There still is a lot to lose, but its shrinking fast. Sadly, the Trump supporters seem to believe they think setting a back-fire is the last best chance to save at least part of the village. In terms Vargas Llosa describes in "Notes on the Death of Culture" this is all part of the Spectacle. We are all now willing or unwilling participants in the kardashian-azation of society. It matters not if you are corrupt or a blowhard, its the adulation, the "buzz", and ultimately the ratings that count.

'Liberal democracy is humankind’s greatest political achievement'. Yes. Along with its necessary twin, the free market. However, Liberals are no longer liberal. They are now "progressives", and having gained power, have sown the seeds for the destruction of both

True, we shouldn't talk in absolutes, as none ever really existed for either liberal democracy or free markets. However, the closer you get to free markets, the closer you can come to a liberal democracy, (in the classic more libertarian meaning), and the closer you come to a liberal democracy, the freer the markets. Either way, better the outcome for society. Limit one, you will sooner or later limit the other, and the outcomes worsen.

The claim that "free markets" -- those economic unicorns steered by a mystical "invisible hands" -- are the necessary twin of democracy, is I think the product of an economically overdetermined "it's the economy, stupid" culture that the West has been drifting into for over half a century now.

Andrés Velasco believes that the rise of populism has much the liberals' political correctness to thank for. He urges them to take to "the barricades" and regain the ground lost to populists. Despite widespread frustration among the middle class over globalisaton and income inequality, the author says the "problem is political, not just economic." Even though "liberal democracy is humankind’s greatest political achievement," he says, "liberal democrats around the world are reluctant to make the case for it."
Indeed, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama touted the triump of liberal democracy in a post-communist world. However the author points out that "politics everywhere is Aristotelian: concerned with virtue," and that it is important that "politicians advocate a particular set of values - or virtues." But there was much optimism in the post-Cold War era that an ideology was seen as obsolete. The US was the only superpower, while China rose and became the centre of global industrial growth based on low wages. Europe's re-emergence as a massive, integrated economic power planted the seed for today's malaise, triggered by the 2008 financial crisis, following years of heavy public spending. When mainstream politicians have failed to deliver in recent years, populists are filling the vacuum, reaching out to the disaffected masses and winning their "hearts and minds." So the stalling economy and - especially - the refugee crisis had helped populism gain traction.
It's true that liberal thinkers espouse in general "moral neutrality" - an elegant balance of liberty and equality - and oppose "censorship or oppression." But their lack of "a single set of values, or a particular definition of what constitutes a good life" leave those stranded, who rely on the guidance of moral authorities in times of crisis. Religious fundamentalists see a "liberal society" as a thorn in their side, because they believe the live and let live prinicple would ultimately lead to decadence and come to harm "third parties." Liberal thinkers find themselves in a "liberalism's quandary," as they see it as "discriminatory and illiberal to promote, much less impose, a particular group’s values, religious or otherwise." The author says "political leaders can and should advocate the shared values.....that define a liberal society," to make themselves relevant.
Indeed, "ceding the terrain of emotion-shaping to anti-liberal forces" like Trump and French National Front leader Marine Le Pen is wrong, because they "use passion in the service of a politics of fear and hatred," instead of advocating for "political ideals.....which value human reason above base emotions. Here we see the difference in political campaigns - liberal messages are "in a tone best suited to small, polite gatherings" - quite the contrary to those raucous rallies held by ranting demagogues, making "people think of liberal values as tepid and boring.”
The author says "Obama is the only liberal democratic leader who speaks the language of values and virtue," and he shows that both "reason and emotion" can be employed as a "political persuasion." Experts say, "proper emotions are rational" and not "an illicit appeal to irrationality." If liberal democrats are suffering setbacks, they shouldn't put the blame on populists, but to reach out to the masses and tell them all about their willingness to share "responsiblity" and a better future built together, if necessary sharing "sacrifices." The author believes that "no social or political organization in human history has come closer than liberal democracy to realizing the ideal of equal opportunity for all" - an achievement worth defending.

For decades we in the USA were told the liberals want to reduce inequality. But they don't, it just gets worse. For example, Obama could have simply vetoed any extension of the regressive Bush tax cuts. The result would have been a lower deficit and a more progressive tax code. No compromise was necessary -- it was entirely within his power. But no .... the "compromise" is always more state debt to reward the liberal/left and more corporate profit for the conservative/right.
Meanwhile the commentariat tars the populists, the last folks that actually pushed back corporations and cleaned up government.

Obama's uplifting values-based rhetoric proves he has good writers. He is a corporatist with good writers. If Obama's actions reflected his rhetoric, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump would be enjoying the campaign season in relative obscurity.

Martin Luther King's appeal was to moral reasoning in that American blacks be treated equally in American society. Most Americans were in sympathy with his goals, the hold back were some Southern political leaders and a few well placed bigots from varied constituencies. When their opposition was vanquished through legislation, things fell into place smoothly (at least legally but mostly in practice, also).

The current threat is perceived to be economic which tends to engender base emotions since many voters feel they are being economically disenfranchised. The American elite have thus far failed to recognize this issue which has led to the current turmoil.

It is to the credit of Republican voters that they have informed their party that the status quo will no longer work. The perceived misfortune is that this has been capitalized by Donald Trump who may or may not be the answer. The Democratic voters continue to be the victim of party elite cramdown to the extent that an old socialist has gotten considerable traction in what currently appears o be a stacked against him effort.

The most spectacular failures come from past successes that no longer work. It should be an interesting period up to and perhaps beyond the US Presidential election.

I disagree Mr. Stouch. There is both reason and judgement in Mr. Palmero's observations. He does seem to over-minimize the problem with Republican voter's turn to Trump to declare their dissatisfaction with the party status quo: they seem to be adopting the strategy of burning the village to save it for the people.

A very good, powerful essay and food for thought. But I'm reminded of the old saying that if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

That said, a form of what I would call "political defeatism" does seem to me to have penetrated close to the roots of our Western liberal democracies, and perhaps some form of counter-demagoguery is going to be required to address it. As David Hume famously wrote, "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

Meanwhile, the representative attitude expressed by Mr. Edwards in his comment below needs to be taken seriously, or the people may end up throwing the baby out with the bath water -- with no clue as to what either might be replaced with.

Democracy is deader then the passenger pigeon, How many poor or even middle class people are in Congress? And how many are not millionaires after 10 years? And whose wants and interests do they respond to? It surely isn't the people who work for an hourly wage! Shared ? The only thing that has been shared is Wallstreets bad debts!!!! Sacrifice? Every time one of our "Elites" mentions sacrifice they are not talking them. I have been replaced and forced to train my H1B replacement twice watched my job shipped to the third world because I can not work for a dollar an hour. Shared My A--! Liberal Democracy has been replaced by government of by and for rich people and companies. We now live in a country of private profits and taxpayer losses. I won't vote for Trump but he is appealing to the people that the Establishment has told Shut up! Die and stop bothering us! We are to busy getting rich to care about your problems. And I understand their position perfectly. we who actually work have been abandoned ignored and despised and any change looks good. The only thing trickling down on me from Wall street or the Ivory tower isn't rain. Look around Democracy is DOA. When candidates stop off to kiss Sheldon Adelson's ....ring before they actually decide to run it kind of says it all.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.